As I write this I’m cruising at an altitude 23K feet and at a speed of 427 mph, so you’ll forgive me if I say that I’m glad this machine does not turn off – well not right now anyway .

But the internet does not and, therefore, neither does the web – I would argue that the internet is the only machine man has ever built that has never broken down and never will because it can’t – and this is fundamental.

So based on that a few things have been whizzing through my mind whilst being horizontal in the sun with a few Mojito’s.

I’m on my way back from Malta after a good few days off and a few things have triggered some thought’s whilst I have been away.

Firstly I was getting told off for twittering and that I was on holiday and that I shouldn’t be engaged in work – I’m not sure what this means? "Twitter will still be there when you get back" they said, "I take it you have a floating lap-top" they concluded. I can understand that, when on holiday, you should refrain from work-orientated stuff, after all you are on holiday – but when has twitter ever been about work?

Surely twitter and/or social media/networks on the web are a means of having conversations: really it’s no different to a phone. When you’re on holiday do you stop using a phone? And yet a phone can be used for work and social activities, therefore, why not the web and it’s various tools?

I know that to some people that it is work, but in my mind that goes against the reason why we use it in the first place – as a means of conversation. To just think of it as work means that, by default, you are wanting to create solely work-related conversation, and I’m not convinced that that is the right reason. In my mind the dialogue should be a social one, hence social media, not work conversation media – bearing that in mind why wouldn’t I twitter whilst sitting on the beach?

… and before anyone say’s "you’re just trying to convince yourself Nick" ask yourself this "why would I need to?" – after all it’s my holiday.

… and that’s another thing.

Last week Google announced that it’s search engine will now include forum topics and answers in its search database – click here -. This is interesting, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, and this could have a lot to do with the advent of "real time", Google appears to be including the minutea. What I mean by this is "Forum data" – a huge data-bank of information/discussion/opinion and reasoning. Just think about all the topics of information there are hidden in the data-banks of forums – a real treasure chest of "stuff".

(Moreover, I think they are planning to start searching in the invaluable database of "real time" : real time meaning that enormous, and growing, pile of stuff from Twitter, Facebook and Friendfeed. As we speak, Google offers up 31 billion searches per month from blogs and Websites in the main – how many more can we add to that if you include searches via "real time"? Also how much better would the results be?

My reason for bringing this up, after reading what Google was up to, was that, as some of you know we (Vanessa and I) run one of the busiest property forums in the UK at the moment Property Tribes and as forum owner’s we have had very strict guideline to how our forum is "led".

At this point I must say that the forum was started by me but I don’t own it, it’s the community that owns it, but as the "starter of the forum" I have to "moderate the forum" – on that note, I lead it with the web in mind and it’s future and how we should harness it.

On that subject, some "issues" have cropped up. In the main, and this is why I like forums, Google never forgets – and now it forgets less and less, so forums are great places to "show case" your ability both in method and product.

In the world of property, it’s fair to say that there are a number of, how shall we say, undesirables "schysters" maybe (I’m sure all industries have them). It is also true that they appear on forums, mainly to broadcast their product in a monologue diatribe, certainly not to engage in a dialogue. However, of late, we have seen increasing "angst" against these companies – and the noise level is increasing both in calm conversation as well as heated – it would seem, therefore, that the model they use is defunct (and in my mind always has been).

My point is this: on a number of occasions I have been threatened, by legal action, as the forum owner to remove such threads (this would be a great debate as another blog topic: Who do you go after the forum owner, the poster or the hosting company?)

Here’s the rub: Why would these companies want the thread removed – if they believe in their product, they should not need to.

By removing the thread you are forcing me (as the forum owner) to explain why I did it. Therefore, if I write "thread removed due to legal threats from blah blah blah" this is not sending a good message out about "blah blah blah". If the jungle drums are stating that "blah blah blah" is an untrustworthy company, and they are appearing on many forums and being commented on by many bitter people, then by forcibly removing the thread/s is/are causing even more havoc for them – and from what I can gather, it is.

Google never forgets and neither does its cache, so even removing the content does not rub it clean.

So it would seem that the web in it’s latest evolution can give us the ability to comment on "stuff" – in this instance someones product/service. Don’t you think that this is great for us all?

For the consumer it’s because we can make informed decisions on products and services that will not let us down. But also the companies that are on the receiving end of a "kicking" as it gives them the ability to "put things right" if they have nothing to hide from – and if they can’t it’s because their product was sh*te, so then there’s a lesson to all of us – don’t have sh*te products.

The web dictates transparency and no lawyer can over turn that one.

Most companies have a "bottom line" and so if they want their "bottom line" to improve then what they need to do is "get their ducks in a line" and "run this one up the flag pole" – don’t sell sh*ite (products or services).

By doing this you will improve you bottom line by not spending out on defending yourself as you won’t need to (you will be selling people what they need not what you want them to have). Also you will be able to embrace the web as you won’t need to control that either. The end result is you make more money, the customer gets satisfaction, no one needs to get threatened and I can advocate your product as a forum owner.

Quite simple really, the only ones that lose are the lawyers, so please forgive me if I don’t lose any sleep over that – the rest of us win.

As it happens, I advised the said company/s above to "get on the threads and tell engage with the community to resolve issues",  but it fell on deaf ears – or rather they fully understood what I was saying and thought they could control the situation by issuing threats but could not see the long term damage that they were causing for themselves.   I question who would buy a product from someone who has a history of legal threats, poor customer relations, and terrible word of mouth, backed up by a whole litany of on-line evidence.

You can’t turn off the internet.

Regards N

 

socialmediagraffiti.com

 

 

So a war has broken out.

Well it was inevitable, at least on Katie Price’s side anyway.

In case you were not aware, Peter Andre and Katie Price are getting divorced (shock!!).  However, although I’m not a divorce expert, I would suggest that the main problem was the nature in which they interacted – she was ‘me, me, me’ and the centre of attention,  and he wanted to help and share, this is also obvious from their twitter accounts.

You can see the conversations Peter is having on his (with fans) verses the "one way" diatribe on hers (note tweet 3, and obvious dig at Peter). This is a clear cut case of how to (and not) use social media.  It is interesting to note how their Twitter accounts are a reflection of their personalities, and Pete definitely comes out the winner.  He uses it to answer fans questions, let them know where he is making public appearances, and thanks them for supporting him.  Not mention of Katie.  He acts with dignity and integrity, unlike his soon to be ex-wife!

Social media is not there to be used as another avenue to spill out a monologue, it’s there to create a dialogue – and dialogues lead to business/deeper relationships, whether on the phone or twitter (in this instance).

Twitter is not and never has been THE platform it’s just one of them, no different than a phone. Can you imagine picking up the phone and saying "heard pete doing shoot with the kids in sardina dontknow why he is doing a shoot he has set up every other one in papers sad" (her spelling) and then putting the phone down!?!? It’s not going to get you far.

Using social media to "bitch" about someone or send a one way diatribe of marketing will not work – using it to "nurture" people with conversations will.

The outcome of their divorce and the reasons behind it are irrelevant to us and this conversation, however, the interesting bit is the nature of the way they are as people and that can be seen in the manner of the way they use (in this instance) twitter.

Pete’s got it right Katie has not.

… and that’s another thing the best thing about twitter is not twitter, it’s the fact that twitter is coaching us all about "real time" on the web. Friendfeed is way better than twitter, but the interface is "pants".

Real time is important, not only from the point of view that we can have "real time" conversations but from the point of view that there is now a large "bank" of information that we can search on – and this is the real importance of "real time".

At the moment if you have a web site (traditionally) it does not change much. If you have a blog it changes every now and again, and these are what Google’s 31 billion searches per month pick up on.

However, we "tweet" and post on facebook etc many time a day/hour/minute, therefore, the volume of "stuff" to search on via these platforms is (or is going to be) vast in comparison to a traditional Google search. Moreover, the information you get will be more "up to date", and, I would argue, more reliable. My reason for this is that (in the main) to get up high on a Google search you would have had to pay for it either by "pay per click" or paying an SEO expert to get you there – that does not neceserily make the site relevant.

The same can not be said about "real time" searches as you can’t pay to be there, you have to contribute to be there.

This is important, because of platforms such as twitter, we are becoming more aware of searching via real time, so as business people we need to be there and the only way to be there is to share and have conversations.

I wonder if you did a search on "bitching on twitter" would you find Jordan?